- (1.) Dismissal of second Appeal as having abated for not filing substitution application seeking substitution of respondents 7 and 1 In the array of parties within the statutory period, has been the causative factor leading to filing of the present petition challenging the judgment dated 2-11-1993 passed by Board of Revenue.
(2.) In the suit instituted by respondents 4 and 5 under Section 229 B/176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act relief sought was for declaring themselves to be co-bhumidhars with defendant No. 1 of Schedule A and co- sirdars of Schedule B and further claiming that their 2/5th share be separated. The decision rendered by Asstt. Collector, 1st Class Varanasi held Bhonu, father of the petitioner to be sole sirdar of plot No. 31/1 and Lurkhur to be the sole Sirdar of plot No. 28/2 and for the rest of the land suit was decreed. The appeal preferred against the said decision ended up in dismissal and consequently, a second appeal was filed by Bhonu, father of the petitioner before Board of Revenue. During the pendency of appeal, one Sonu Ram respondent No. 1 in the second appeal died on 5-7-1989. Bhonu also died during the pendency of appeal on 3-10-1991 and substitution application was moved by the petitioner on 27-11-1991. It is claimed in the writ petition that Triloki arrayed.as respondent No. 7 had died during pendency of appeal but no substitution application was moved. Subsequently Lurkhur respondent No.4 in the appeal sought abatement of appeal by means of application dated 30-11-1992 on the ground of want of steps in the matter of substitution pursuant to the death of Triloki as a consequence of which, Board of Revenue passed the impugned order in the second appeal thereby abating the second appeal.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record and the impugned order.;